If a company wishes to not sell specific configurations of their products no one should force them. If that means they lose sales as a result of it, thats their problem. If it turns out another company (such as Microsoft) is forcing itself on the market in an anti-competitive way then it is that company that should be taken to court.

I've always wondered that. I have no proof but I believe all of that crapware (aside from Windows) is there because the publishers are paying for it to be there. Not bundling it may actually increase the cost to the consumer. I wouldn't be surprised if the OEMs were not under NDAs regarding pricing that they would come back and say "If you don't agree with the EULA, return the computer for a refund or pay extra to not use the software"

Certainly, but they'd have to be paying enough per machine to more than account for the licensing cost of Windows on those machines before you'd end up negative. I think that's unlikely, particularly with Lenovos. We buy them for work and there are only two or three titles on there (the dvd 'freeware', disk keeper lite, maybe another) that aren't Lenovo's own software or no-upsell utilities from hw vendors.

HP on the other hand... I usually had to wipe those ones and start over.

The point is that like a lot of things in life you save money for the bundle and if you don't like it don't fucking buy it!

Impossible. There is no consumer choice. Windows is still on >85% of all PCs sold (the rest of which are Macs with their obnoxious requisite markup) and I'll be damned if less than 95% of those came without a single piece of crapware.

Consumers shouldn't have to be forced to support Microsoft if they want a computer - and in fact, most people need a computer. And many of them have specific hardware requirements which those smaller Linux vendors can't always provide. So what are they supposed to do?? Why should they be forced to support those monopolist shitbags just to make a living?

The French court did the right thing here and I wish the EU would drop the sanity hammer and force OEMs to offer all computers with an option for no operating system at a full OEM license discount for said OS. What reason is there not to? Can MS not compete on the technical merit of the software they write? Otherwise MS can just gouge away and continue to rely on sucking more money from OEMs/bundlers, basically getting by with nothing but all those shady backroom deals that they make...

People can find more vulnerabilities when they have access to the source. News at 11.

And treating the fact that the CAs were running Linux as evidence that Linux was the problem is ridiculous. Most vulnerabilities are on flaws of the userspace code. In fact, your second link shows it very well - Javascript injections are hardly an OS exploit. Good FUD there.

I do wonder why you host your email on a Linux based provider, though.

Does not show what OS the CAs were running on, only the public website frontend server of those companies. If it's even that, and not some sort of caching or loadbalancing device. It's not uncommon for CAs to run their actual certificate generation platform on MicroSoft windows.

First of, there is legislation forbidding bundling of goods, so selling a computer and expecting to also get paid for the OS is against this law.
Second, EULA's have very little legal standing, if any.

If you don't like part of something you have bought, you don't have the right to return just that part for a partial refund. You may have the right to return the entire product as a whole for a full refund. If you don't like a particular capacitor in the power supply, can you return that component and expect a partial refund? What if you don't like the warnings written on the keyboard and mouse about overuse syndrome, can you return those for a partial refund too? or the monitor warnings for EMI emissions a

No one is Forcing Lenovo to sell configurations they don't want to.The court is just holding them to the conract they entered into with MS with regards to refund requests from customers who don't agree to the Windows license / EULA.

If OEMs really wanted to avoid the issue, they could have their order page / retail outlets present people with the license at checkout, and then ship the systems with that part of the OOBE skipped / pre-answered.

It is illegal to conspire with someone else to assist him in a crime. And amuse of monopoly is a crime.This means, yes, Lenovo can be forced to sell computers without Windows if Windows bundling is a part of monopoly abuse.

It has to do with their stated primary purpose: Increase shareholders' equity.Anything else is secondary. Hence you can't really expect a corporation to be "ethical". If for a corporation being "right, ethical and lawful" are the best options to increase shareholders' equity, then it will be forced to behave.

However if it can get away with, say, throwing toxic waste directly in a river regardless of the danger to population and irreversible destruction to the environment, it will readily do it, because it serves the primary purpose. Where there are strong public institutions to force them to behave, their best bet is to subvert these public institutions.

Examples are countless, but one I found particularly telling, in CBC's documentary "Tipping Point: The Age of the Oil Sands," [www.cbc.ca] in which at one point a representative of a native nations who are suffering the oil sands exploitation addresses directly Statoil shareholders in Norway. They could not have been less bothered.

Is it inconceivable that a computer is a career/life necessity for some people? Are you seriously suggesting that someone not buy any computers because they don't want any of the ~99% that come with OS X or Windows?

Are you seriously suggesting that someone not buy any computers because they don't want any of the ~99% that come with OS X or Windows?

No he's suggesting that if you're one of the few people that don't want Windows or OSX then you go to one of the few manufacturers (well even HP offers systems with FreeDOS instead of Windows) that offers alternatives to Windows and OSX or you build your own.

Since when is a computer a laptop? It's they other way around, a laptop is a computer. If the computer you want is a laptop then I already suggested what to do, did you not read?:go to one of the few manufacturers (well even HP offers systems with FreeDOS instead of Windows) that offers alternatives to Windows and OSX

The difference between a steering wheel and an OS is that you can still run the laptop without an OS and install your own.

That's not a difference at all, you can still run the car without a steering wheel and install your own. Of course for the most part a car is useless without a steering wheel in the same way a laptop is pretty much useless without an OS.

forcing the OS to be in the purchase with a laptop is called tying, and it's trumped by laws and generally illegal worldwide.

Where? What laws explicitly state this? I have a feeling you're severely misinterpreting something there.

Lenovo does not have a free choice. They can either refuse Microsoft's thuggish demands (do not sell linux or we will cut off all supplies of Windows to you), or they can give in to Microsoft's thuggish demands. They have no power.

- You have no idea if what you're saying it true or not. You're just making up a story to make a point.

- I really doubt that MS would cease selling Windows to Levono because Levono choose to sell some computers with blank hard drives.

I really doubt that MS would cease selling Windows to Levono because Levono choose to sell some computers with blank hard drives.

Actually, if I remember this correctly, Microsoft's (old) contracts with PC Makers required them to give Microsoft money for every PC sold regardless of whether Microsoft software was installed or not.

So you didn't save any money if you, for some reason, asked for computers without Microsoft's DOS.

Yes, exactly. The mfgr paid by the unit, on the assumption that Windows was installed on all of them. Oh, and if Windows *wasn't* installed on all of them, it was very hard to get your phone calls returned, and somehow your competitors found out about new things much sooner than you, and for various odd reasons they always got the releases before you.

They can either refuse Microsoft's thuggish demands (do not sell linux or we will cut off all supplies of Windows to you)

Do you actually have any evidence that this is occurring? Because I'm sure the DOJ would love to hear about it since that is clearly anticompetitive. Also why can't Lenovo get a special deal like Dell got that allowed them to sell Linux desktops?

They should just sell some with _nothing_ installed, then the end user can do what they want if they know how.

Having Linux pre-installed somehow impedes that?

People who want to run Linux will know how to install it or will be able to read the instructions.

It's hardly as though anyone who wants to install their own operating system is going to be bamboozled just because there is an operating system already on there and if that operating system is Linux then the cost issue is gone too.

Or about android tablets being sold with android on them, or smart phones with [choose any operating system] on them. Hardware is useless without software, software is useless without hardware. It makes perfect sense to bundle the two together.

But this is exactly like that. The PC can run any number of operating systems. The customer is being forced to purchase software with the hardware when he already has other options for an operating system. The EU has fairly strict rules about what you can and can't do in trade and a good part of them are actually about protecting the consumer.

If your any-operating-system-phone was real, then in the EU you couldn't force a customer to buy the phone with an operating system on it and charge them the extra for it. It is these strict consumer laws in the EU that made Microsoft offer Windows 7 N in the EU as well as the whole "Browser Picker" thingy.

Slight difference: phones and tablets are not marketed or developed to serve as "general purpose computing devices," like laptops or desktops. That was one of the "features" of a PC: with the right boot loader, kernel, drivers, etc, you can run what you want on it. I doubt very many people buy smartphones with that idea in mind - "people" meaning "everyone," not just those on/..

I don't recall if you could run something other than Amiga OS on Amiga hardware, or TRS-DOS on a Model 100, but that would be si

MANDATORY: On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:a) It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK.
b) If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system will be operating in Setup Mode with Secure Boot turned off.
c) The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults.

The question is rather irrelevant, however, if Micro$oft were going to sell tyres, I guess they will have magnets built in to attract nails, will have to be filled up with Micro$oft air and will have valves that leak so much that you will need to inflate them every three kilometres. Also, they would work only on Micro$oft roads and you would have to pay license per kilometre on top of the price of the car.....

One of the ploys that car makers are doing now is designing their crap radios into the system so that if you put an after-market radio into the car, it won't start or the headlights won't work, or various other things - not to mention that the dashboard doesn't allow an aftermarket radio to fit into the space so their designers can have fun styling the dashboard.

Both 'issues' that the car makers are presenting can be solved by a simple, existing technical solution - a standard radio front panel interface that includes additional connections for car functions - in fact many/most modern cars are already using CANBUS, so they would only have to support a CANBUS interface to the radio, and the radio makers would have to provide a set of common commands (like an API, only message passing interface). The radio makers probably already do that, since car makers don't build radios. So if I want to put in an aftermarket sound system, I would just have to open the dash, unplug the existing POS radio and insert my new hotness (and maybe add speakers, etc.)

IMHO this could be a candidate for antitrust, as the car makers are locking third party companies out of an effective monopoly with this action. It's a very similar situation to the original Carterfone decision, which opened the telephone system to third party equipment.

I have yet to see a phone that can't be bought without a contract.
In Europe you get very differently priced plans depending you bring your own phone or have it subsidised via the monthly charges.

Like I bought my N900 and then went shopping for a data and call plan, I started with pre-paid as I didn't know how much I would use it and after 6 months I got a 1GB + 100 mins./month plan for €15.- .

Excellent question.
Personally I never buy desktop's pre-made speicifically because I don't want to be forced to pay for a windows license I don't want, and am not going to use. Sadly, however, I don't get that luxury when it comes to a laptop. When I buy a laptop I am forced to pay for a windows license, even though the very first thing I do with the laptop is install linux on it. It makes me sad to know that no matter how much I dislike Windows (and Microsoft), my hard earned money still ends up in their pockets everytime I by a laptop. Add to that what they've done to makers of android phones, it becomes very difficult to use technology without forking over money to Microsoft.
Really the only way to get on the internet or carry a smart phone without giving money to Microsoft is to use all Apple products, and frankly that is not high on my list of things to do either.

Personally I never buy desktop's pre-made speicifically because I don't want to be forced to pay for a windows license I don't want, and am not going to use. Sadly, however, I don't get that luxury when it comes to a laptop.

I know of one laptop manufacturer that does not require Windows: http://www.avadirect.com/ [avadirect.com]
Their problem is supply chain: They frequently do not have certain components in stock (matte displays in particular). If you are looking for something they have in stock, then I highly recommend them. You can customize (on a laptop remember, so there are chasis limits) all the way down to the thermal grease on the processor.
I do build my own desktops and servers.

If you buy a refurbished machine, you may get by without supporting Microsoft, at least in the instant - refurbished machines might have had an MS license previously, but no more.

A few years ago I bought a refurbished Lenovo Z61m from Budget Computers [budcom.com] in Beaverton OR. Since I was installing Linux on it, they gave me $50 off IIRC - they would have had to install and pay for a Windows license if I wanted Windows. Of course, they told me they could not support it beyond obvious hardware issues but that was OK with me. And they were helpful both by email and telephone at various times - good folks, no other connection than buying a machine.

Like it or not, the software bundled with your computer drives its cost down. Those companies (Norton, AOL, Roxio etc.) pay to have their software preloaded on your machine. If it becomes standard practice to offer a blank machine, hardware prices will just increase. Some manufacturers even offer a crapware free machine for a nominal fee.

Does anyone honestly think that retailers would charge you $50 less (or whatever the cost of the Windows License is, probably closer to $15) if Windows wasn't installed? Just look at Dell when they offered Linux boxes. The cost of the machine was often times more than the equivalent Windows machine.

Lesson learned here is offer an option for an unsubsidized blank hard drive that costs more than the Windows version. Problem solved, no "Microsoft Tax"

No company is going to pay to have their software installed on a Linux machine because their software is not written for Linux. Thus the small cost of the Windows License* is completely offset by payments from these companies. Therefore pre-installing Windows has a positive impact on the manufacturer's cost of the machine which gets passed on to you.

*Again, I don't know what the actual cost of a license is for Dell, Lenovo, etc. but it has to be peanuts for them to sell $200 machines on razor margins.

You've missed the point - the issue is not the cost to the consumer. It is that there are consumers that do not wish to subsidize Microsoft, no matter whether the money is coming from their own pocket or from some parasitic software company. Do you think after all his time in court that the French laptop buyer actually made a profit on this whole affair? The whole point is for consumers to fight back against the abuse of monopoly positions.

And you notice that Lenovo does not reveal to the court the actual cost of the licence? They might well have trouble explaining the difference between this cost ("peanuts") and the amount that is being charged for separate licences.

It is that there are consumers that do not wish to subsidize Microsoft, no matter whether the money is coming from their own pocket or from some parasitic software company.

Shouldn't a consumer as principled as that not buy from a vendor that sells MS products at all? I mean, Lenovo is a big customer of Microsoft. Any dollar to Lenovo is another dollar they get to spend on Windows Licenses.

They might well have trouble explaining the difference between this cost ("peanuts") and the amount that is being charged for separate licences.

Shouldn't a consumer as principled as that not buy from a vendor that sells MS products at all?

Wouldn't leave too many vendors, would it! Are you suggesting Apple is a better choice! The principle is not to attack the vendor (or even Microsoft), it is that the consumer should have a choice, and sufficient information to make that choice wisely.

It's called a volume discount

Funny, in most cases vendors are more than happy to quote how much of a volume discount you are getting. Why all the secrecy? Could it be that knowing the true value of the product might actually have some negative PR effect!

>No company is going to pay to have their software installed on a Linux machine because their software is not written for Linux.

That's not what this is about.

Whether they write their crapware for Linux is irrelevant. Nobody is demanding that they write it for Linux. Nobody is demanding (in this discussion) that manufacturers preinstall Linux. I'm not going to use Windows. I did not agree to the Windows license. Windows is an added cost.

Why are you missing the obvious point that the crapware subsidizes the hardware you've bought?

If you didn't want to buy Windows then you shouldn't have bought Windows, if you buy a product you can't just go back and return pieces of that product for a refund. What you should have done is gone to a manufacturer that sells a system without an OS or with a free (cost) OS like this [eightvirtues.com] or you could have gone here [apple.com] but they have the same problem i suppose, though it's not Windows. Many companies, including Best Buy,

That doesn't explain that the hardware would be cheaper without the crapware, they've just removed the cost of the Windows license as per the EULA, something i believe they have removed, which makes perfect sense given the crapware cannot be run if Windows isn't included therefore those software vendors will be unlikely to pay the OEM if the software isn't included. Surely you don't think OEMs include the crapware for free so how much is it?

If the steaming pile of poo from Norton, McAfee, etc, reduce the price by more than the cost of the pound of Microsoft flesh... then the consumer does get a net value. Those crapware vendors aren't going to subsidize hardware without an OS to support their stench.

Even if the Windows cost is something, as long as it is small, someone who wants bare hardware may still make out, due to economies of scale - the vendor need not stock different SKUs, etc.

This is not about the OEM selling "naked," to use a Microsoft term, machines.

This is about being able to get a refund for the already installed Windows which is going to go unused.

In that case why can't i do that with all other products? I want a refund for the rims on my car, i don't need them as i have other wheels i prefer to use. Also on my linux box i never use the 'windows keys' on my keyboard, i should be able to get a refund for those right? Since i've gotten used to using Ctrl+Click to right click on my macbook i don't need the right-click button on my aftermarket mouse, should be able to refund that too yeah? If i feel i'm paying extra for features I don't need then i won't

i just looked at the offer of random online comp shop located in my area (Central Europe) and the differences between linux and windows versions of the same model are approx in $60-120 range, depending on starter/hp/pro and 32/64bit. If you have absolutely no use for windows. that's a lot of money to blow on nothing.

Random Online Comp Shop Inc. isn't going to get the volume license discount that Dell/Lenovo get for shipping millions of licenses, nor do they install the crapware that Dell/Lenovo do to offset COGS. Which raises another point, why buy Lenovo and get pissed they don't offer a blank HDD when plenty of smaller businesses sell computers without an OS?

Does anyone honestly think that retailers would charge you $50 less (or whatever the cost of the Windows License is, probably closer to $15) if Windows wasn't installed?

Well, how about we ask the retailers?

I am looking right now at HP's "configure your laptop" screen in their online store.

The OS selection options they are offering me are:

Genuine Windows 7 Professional 32 [add $0.00]

Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64

Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64 [subtract $25.00]

FreeDOS [subtract $100.00]

So, if you are right - if the cost of a Windows license is just $15 or so, there is no Microsoft tax, and computers are subsidized by Windows-only crapware - why is HP willing to refund me $100 on the spot if I choose not to have Windows?

In 2007 I bought an HP with Vista pre installed and asked the store for my money back.
After some wrangling they passed me on to the HP importer here in The Netherlands who after more wrangling offered me €35.- , so little that I decided to make the computer dual boot.

Beginning in 1988, and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" licenses. Under a per processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the compute

Nobody can force someone to buy from Lenovo or Dell. The issue is that if the EULA allows for a refund if I decline the license, they should pony up the cash. I understand they have since changed their EULA and you can no longer reject just the windows license. That's fine.

All I ask is that companies at least stick to what is written in their very own documentation and agreements.

The last 2 laptop computers I purchased did not come with any disks at all... and it was assumed that one would make restoration disks oneself after completing their system setup. This is very annoying, because then the restoration disks end up putting back all the bloatware that the manufacturer puts on it.

Observing that "it is commonly accepted that the price of a piece of software represents 10 percent to 25 percent of the price of a computer," the court ordered Lenovo to reimburse Petrus â120 for the software.

Commonly accepted by whom? Certainly not by Oracle salesmen, or EDA software salesmen, or many other application and operating system areas (eg. MS Server). OK, it may be true for desktop PCs, but the computer market is more than just desktops.

I have purchased several PCs with an included microsoft license. I read the agreement and in all cases the Vendor stated that they would refund the operating system cost if it was requested and not installed. Having called these companies, I can tell u that they will pretend to have no idea wat u r talking about and insist that u return the entire purchase for a refund. I choose not to refund and tried for months to communicate with them in order to receive the refund they promised in the agreement they sent to me. The first thing their support staff told me was to call Microsoft for a refund. But the windows license agreement clearly states in the beginning it is between u (consumer) and the vendor (HP, Lenovo, etc). I copied the entire agreement and quoted the pertinent parts to their support staff. But they continued to pretend not to understand what they had written. Finally, a support staff member from Hewlett Packard stated directly to me: "You will never get a refund from us".

The only recourse is to sue the vendor in order to get a refund. But realistically, who is going to do this. I commend this consumer for sticking to his guns and taking the vendor to task. It is about time some people stand up to fight for the agreement that the vendor puts in writing themselves. It is ridiculous that a vendor provides u with an agreement that they wont even honor and pretend to not understand. What do u think the vendor would do if u began to violate the license agreement urself? Like if I began selling free copies of the operating system. Do u think the vendor would continue to pretend that they dont understand the letter of this license?

It seems clear to me that Vendors supply the option for a refund in the agreement, because to not do so would subject them to anti-competitive practice lawsuits... which can be a huge fine. But the reality is that they have absolutely no intent of honoring this agreement and provide only two options: pay for something u dont want or refund everything and go away.

IMO, this situation is ripe for a class action lawsuit. I live in Canada. I would be more then happy to support such a case and offer all my assistance of past correspondence to assist in the case. I cannot believe I am the only one who finds the Microsoft bundled products less then useless and requested a refund as outlined in the agreement. Alone, it is difficult to do anything, but together I believe that real change could occur.

It's a bit different with Macs, though. You got effectively one vendor as your sole source for Macs. It'd be different if Dell, Lenovo and all the others were free to ship computers with OS X installed, but that's not the case. So if you intentionally choose that one vendor that whose product is in large part the OS that it ships with and you brought a suit like this, the judge would probably laugh at you and ask why you didn't just purchase from someone else and get a computer with Windows installed on

I responded to you because that's exactly the principle: that no hardware should be bundled with software. If you read the website of the group who is advocating this ruling, they say: "Why should you not be able to choose, when confirming your purchase, to take or to leave the version of Windows (or MacOS or Linux) chosen by the manufacturer?" So yeah, it really is about principle, and by that principle, even Apple customers should be able to complain. But as you point out, there is absurdity in that. But

The French use a peculiar keyboard so ordering it from abroad is not straightforward.
But there is no need, the law forbids the forced bundling of goods, when Renault fits cars at the factory with Michelin tyres but you would rather have have Pirelli's you'll will get them without ever having to ask for a refund on the Michelins.

Dell sold computers with FreeDOS because they had an agreement with Microsoft that they would not sell computers without an operating system, which might have meant that Dell could not have sold any personal computers without including Windows with them. Shipping computers with FreeDOS was just a loophole for people who wanted to buy cheaper computers and put Linux on them or unlicensed copies of Windows.